TIMARU BOROUGH COUNCIL.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIC, Issue 13830, 16 February 1909, Page 7

TIMARU BOROUGH COUNCIL.

.Those members of, clic Timaru Borougu Uouncd who are ui favour of the auuntion ot the wards in the Borough ol 'iuiiaru, and who, through the absence of .one of their number were deloated iu their desire at the last ordiuary meeting of the Council, started, de uavo, at a special meeting of the Council held last night with the necessary preliminaries to the attainment of their desire to see Timaru an undivided Borough. Present: The Mayor, Councillors Sattertliwaite, Raymond, Harney, Parks, Leathwick, Rotliwell, Schmidt, Oborn, Sealey, Hawkey, and Bowker. Councillor Mullin, who is in the North Island, had voted in favour of the change. The • Mayor explained the purpose of the meeting, and pointed out that in June last the Council had passed a resolution affirming the desirableness of abolishine the wards, when the pros and cons of the matter liad r bcen fuljy discussed.* Tilt? chniigfc- 1 had not bewi canned into effect then because it was desired to make it at the time of the ordinary election, thns avoiding the expenses of an extra election. The motion for the change had been carried by 7 to 4 in .June, two of those against it being absent that night, it had afterwards been confirmed, hut when it came on for confirmation at the last meeting of the Council, two Councillors who were in favour of it were absent, and it was lost. This being so, the supporters of the change had brought the proposal on again, and they would make a fresh start that night. ~ Councillor Sattertliwaite as the original mover in the matter, thefn proposed and Councillor Raymond seconded a motion to the effect that the ward system be abolished. The mover said that not very much need be said now. as the subject had been pretty well threshed out. He moved the motion -because he considered it would aid the progress of Timaru in that if the ratepayers had a say in the election of the whole . Council instead of only in the election of representatives for the respective wards, greater interest would be taken in municipal matters. The Borough , had been divided 25 years ago and the ' system ot sucn-uivisiou Having become oosoicte, should be done away with. 'JLhe representation at present was very unequal, as tlie following figures would show —South West Ward li/l electors, with a valuation of £3484; North East Ward, 335 and £39,945; South East, . .271 and £9609; North West, 400 and £14,514; North Suburban, 462 and £13,715; South Suburban, 391 and £9525. There was_ a vast difference be- • tween the population and the ratable value in the different wards, yet they each returned the , same number of representatives, and he considered it would be better to broaden the franchise so that all the ratepayers would have a say in the election of every member of the Council. No separate ward accounts were kept so that there . was no need for a divided Borough, and Councillors were elected to study the interests of the town as a whole. Councillor Raymond thoroughly approved of the proposed change, and pointed out that as the ratepayers as a whole were saddled with the debt of the Borough, they should have a say in the election of all their representatives on the Council. If the change were made it would create a" greater interest in the election of Councillors; there would not be so many seats allowed to go by default, so to speak. Councillor Hawkey said he had heard nothing to cause him to change his opinion, and he knew of no reason why they should depart from the ward system which had been in vogue for -5 years, and with which no fault had been found. The change would not be in the interest of the ratepayers as a whole. It was brought forward by the younger members of the Council —the least experienced in municipal matters —and he felt it his duty as an old Councillor, fco protect the ratepayers against such innovations. Some of the young Councillors posed as economists, but here they were wasting the money of the ratepayers in a needless change when they could, had they chosen to do so, have obtained the opinion of the ratepayers without expense, namely, by making it a platform question at the election. He would challenge Councillor Sattertliwaite to brine forward at the election twelve candidates against twelve old svstem candidates which he (Councillor" Hawkey) would bring forward, and they would fiabt the election out on this basis. Pie bad been on the Council for 15 years and Councillor ScaW for thirteen vears, which was sufficient to show that the ratepayers had confidence in their abilitv to see ths>t the v f'-ids wp-e "xnended fairl^. cillors had always taken tlie broad view, and did not consider the rcquirc-

ments of their respective wards only. He felt it his duty to >-tand out against the proposed change as long as possible, and if Councillors all had as much backbone as lie had, they would stand behind their chairs and leave the-meeting without a quorum so that they could not take a vote on liiis question again.' The Mayor said he was sure there was no lack of backbone among the Councillors.

Coimcilior Ilothwell deprecated the change as uncalled for and unnecessary. Such au important question should be submitted to the ratepayers for settlement*. He had sufficient backbone to voi« against it, and would stand by his convictions. As chairman of the meeting, the Mayor should not give a casting vote, seeing tliat the voting would be six to six, but should allow the ratepayers to say whether or not they wanted an undivided borough.

Councillor Sealey also spoke strongly against the proposed change, and. he too threw .out a challenge to Councillor Sattertliwaite. If the latter would take a petition . around -tlia—boreuglj for the abolition of the wards, lie (Councillor Sealey) would take another for the continuance of the wards, and would guarantee to beat Councillor Sattertliwaite by 10 to I. Councillor Sattertliwaite had not the slightestidea- of what would take place in the back parts of the borough if the wards were abolished, nor had he any idea whether the ratepayers as a whole desired the change. Jt would be wrong to undo a system winch had prevailed for '25 years without first consulting the ratepayers, and ho *was surprised at the Councillors who were attempting it —almost ashamed of them. Like Councillor Hawkey he had backbone enough to stand behind his chair arid leave the meeting without a quorum. He reminded the Council that the South Canterbury Education Board had divided its district- into wards, finding that the open system did not work.

- Councillor Harney next uttered a vigorous protest against the change, as did also Councillor Oborn, the latter remarking that the abolition of the wards would mean government by Stafford street, and a council composed of more wealthy but less representative men than those who formed the Council at present.

The Mayor said this could hardly be so, because the working class were in the majority, and could elect a Council to suit themselves. Councillof Parkes spoke in favour of the change, so as to Broaden the basis of election and give to all ratepayers a say in the election of all the members of the Council.

Councillor Hawkey made a strong appeal to the Mayor not to act in ah unconstitutional manner by exercising a casting vote wlien "the Council was so evenly divided—six to six. The Mayor said that if this were the first time the matter had been discussed, he would not exercise his casting vote, but it had been under the notice of the ratepayers for more than six months, and they had offered no objection to the proposed change. it had been fully discussed and carried in the Council, and if Councillor Mullin had been present that night, he (the Mayor) would not" have required to exercise his casting vote in order to carry it. - This being so. and because he considered it to be a democratic move, as it would broaden the franchise, he would have no hesitation in giving his casting vote as well as his ordinary vote in favour of the change. Every ratepayer lie hud spoken to on the subject had favoured doing away with the wards, and on the basis of acreage, capital value, rateable value, or' population, the present system was inequitable. An amendment by Councillor Hawkey, seconded by Councillor Sealey, was then put and lost, this being in direct opposition to the motion. On the motion being put, it was carried, the voting being—For: The Mayor, Councillors Sattertliwaite, Raymond, fjeatliwick, Bowker, and Parks. Against: Councillors Hawkey, Sealey, Oborn, Schmidt, Rothwell and Harney. The motion was carried on the casting vote of the Mayor.